4 ms·
I hear ya. I recently worked with a customer using ASGs and the scale down part of the ASG does need to make subscription-manager calls to avoid leaking subs.
by oso2k 8y ago
I hear ya. I recently worked with a customer using ASGs and the scale down part of the ASG does need to make subscription-manager calls to avoid leaking subs. Also makes blue-green cluster upgrades more interesting as well.
If you have a specific suggestion/RFE, I’d be happy to push on it.
- falcolas 8y agoFirst, note that charging per CPU makes clients less likely to keep sufficient overhead to account for node loss or service scaling. Anything that makes availability a major financial decision is a bad thing (and openshift support is a relatively major financial line item). A technical solution: A service that counts nodes or available VCPUs and reports it for billing. Kubernetes metrics makes this really simple. A contract solution: Realize that bare metal is not the future (even for enterprises), and adopt a different billing model; following Oracle's per-CPU model is not the the way to be a leader in this industry. Per cluster, by bands of service counts, per site, per hour with minimum hour counts, etc.
- pas 8y agobare metal is not the future, but very much a big chunk of the market, and it'll be for a long time. (and, I think, bare metal with k8s-like orchestrators is the short term future, and k8s + FaaS will probably bring the long awaited portability, that might help bring the hosting/infra prices down.) that said, per core pricing is bullshit. and for exactly the reasons you mentioned.